USA > New York > History of the state of New York, political and governmental, Vol. II 1822-1864 > Part 20
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38
298
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
[1843
Assembly Thomas G. Alvord and Elisha Litchfield were among those elected-both being from Onondaga county.
Many of the Whigs regarded the outcome of the elec- tion as little less than an irreparable disaster. Millard Fillmore was in despair, seeing no hope of saving any- thing from the wreck. He feared that the party, lack- ing either masterful leadership or cohesive principles, would be dissolved into the factional elements from which it had been formed. But there were those whom defeat made all the more resolute and aggressive. Con- spicuous among these was William H. Seward, who discerned from afar the "irrepressible conflict" and never for a moment lost faith in the Whig party or its mission. Thurlow Weed was calm, quiet, self-con- trolled, and resourceful. Horace Greeley was busily and prosperously engaged in journalism. He had founded the New York Tribune in 1841, publishing the first number on the day of President Harrison's funeral, and was developing it into a powerful political organ that was destined to exert vast influence in both State and national affairs.
The election was, in fact, worse on the whole for the victors than the vanquished. It emphasized the cleavage in the Democratic party between conservatives or Hunkers, and radicals or Barnburners. The enmity al- ready existing between the factions was increased by quarrels over the spoils of victory-for there were many offices which the Whigs had been holding and which now were to be filled with Democrats. There were also increasingly bitter differences as to the policy to be
299
GOVERNOR BOUCK
1843]
pursued by the State government in respect to public works and other issues.
A masterful Governor might have saved the situation. But William C. Bouck was very different from William L. Marcy. Although shrewd, honest, and sincerely and diligently devoted to the public service according to his lights, he was somewhat narrow in his views, had little force of character, and was void of the essential capacity of leadership. The result was that instead of healing the breach in the party he made it worse.
The embarrassment was forced upon him at the be- ginning of his administration, even before he was in- ducted into office. He was himself a conservative or Hunker, and it was to be supposed that he would find his official associates in the ranks of his faction. But immediately after his election the radical press of the State began discussing, suggesting, and all but dictating who should be his appointees to office and who should be his advisers. Obviously, such assumptions were im- pertinent. They were probably intended to embarrass him, and at any rate had that effect. The Governor committed the great mistake of recognizing the schism in the party and seeking to heal it, while at the same time making loyal support of his own administration the test of party regularity. As for the appointments, he made them so far as possible from his own family and circle of friends. In any case it would have been difficult to harmonize the party; Governor Bouck's policy, though well meant, made it quite impossible. The split was deepened, and both factions were alien- ated from him. Thus the unity which seemed to prevail
300
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
[1844
in the campaign of 1843 was entirely superficial, and the resolution of the convention approving his admin- istration was merely a campaign device.
With the party thus rent asunder in State though not in national affairs, the Sixty-seventh Legislature met on January 2, 1844. The organization of the Senate re- mained unchanged. In the Assembly there was an ani- mated contest between the conservatives and radicals, in which the former easily won, electing Elisha Litch- field, of Onondaga county, Speaker, over Michael Hoff- man, of Herkimer, the candidate of the radicals, In- deed, the chief fight was among the conservatives them- selves to determine whether they should vote for Elisha Litchfield or for Horatio Seymour. Litchfield was suc- cessful mainly because he had a powerful ally in Edwin Croswell, the State Printer. James R. Rose was chosen Clerk.
With his conservative friends thus in full control of the Legislature, the Governor was more outspoken in his message than he had been a year before. His first message was said to have been prepared by himself, without any aid or advice, but his second was carefully considered in advance by the leaders of the conserva- tives in both houses of the Legislature. Its most strik- ing feature was its recommendation concerning the canals. He had himself for many years been intimately associated with canal work and was a believer in the system. Moreover, his own political strength lay chiefly in the canal counties. He was therefore naturally and strongly committed to the conservative policy of main- taining the canals and of making the improvements
301
GOVERNOR BOUCK
1844]
that were needed in them so far as the surplus reve- nues of the State would permit. Accordingly he recom- mended that the Schoharie aqueduct should be com- pleted, that the Black River and Genesee Valley canal should be finished, and, most important of all, that the locks of the Erie canal should be enlarged and other im- provements be made, to meet the demands of constantly increasing commerce.
The message also recommended several amendments to the State Constitution. There was a strong move- ment afoot for the holding of another Constitutional convention. This the Governor did not regard as neces- sary or desirable, but he suggested the adoption of sev- eral amendments. One was to create two Associate- Chancellors, with full power, for the Court of Chan- cery; the Legislature responded with an amendment to create three such officers. A second proposed amend- ment which the Legislature approved, was for two additional Justices of the Supreme Court. A third was for some effective system of checking expenditures so as to prevent the contracting of a State debt or the ex- penditure of public funds for other than the ordinary purposes of the State, except by vote of the people. In response to the Governor's suggestion on this last subject the Legislature approved an amendment limiting the State debt to a million dollars, unless by special vote of the people, and excepting indebtedness incurred for suppressing insurrection or repelling invasion.
The great battle of the session occurred over his canal proposals. The radicals rose against the Governor. They wanted the surplus revenues of the State, inclusive
302
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
[1844
of the profits from the canals, to be used entirely for paying the State debt, leaving the canals unfinished and unimproved. Realizing that if the Governor's recom- mendation should be favorably acted on the Democratic party would be committed to his policy, they set zeal- ously to work to prevent such action.
Robert Dennison, of Salisbury Mills, was the chair- man of the Senate committee on canals, and he was a radical. In conference with his faction friends it was recognized that the hope of defeating the Governor's policy lay in the report to be made by that committee. Accordingly Mr. Dennison prepared and presented a report utterly and scathingly condemning the whole canal system. In its extreme language it was reminis- cent of the old-time Tammany diatribes against DeWitt Clinton and his "ditch from the Lakes to the sea." It went so far as to declare and try to prove with figures that instead of making canals the State would have done better to build a system of macadamized roads and pay for the operation of trucks upon them to carry all the freight which had been borne on the canals.
This was absurd. It was so extravagant that it reacted against its author and his faction. Its challenge was quickly accepted in the form of a bill for carrying out the Governor's recommendations, which was intro- duced and urged by Horatio Seymour, who was chair- man of the Assembly and the real leader of the con- servatives in the Legislature. Mr. Seymour was only thirty-four years of age. He was independently rich, of singular personal charm and courtesy, of brilliant ability, of unquestioned integrity, and with the priceless
303
GOVERNOR BOUCK
1844]
gift of statesmanlike vision. As a seer and an advocate of the canal system he seemed to have inherited the mantle of DeWitt Clinton. His report, favoring con- tinuation of canal work, was a masterpiece of suave, persuasive logic, and his speeches in support of it were irresistible. He was opposed by Michael Hoffman, the radical leader and one of the ablest legislators of that time ; but the reply made by Seymour was so convincing that at the end Hoffman refrained from voting-he could not vote for the canals, but also he could not vote against a bill so ably advocated as Mr. Seymour's. The bill passed the Assembly by a vote of 67 to 38.
In the Senate the lines were more closely drawn and the fight was still more bitter. The Democrats were evenly divided on the final vote, but a number of Whigs came to the aid of the conservatives and the bill was passed by 17 to 13. It provided for the completion of the proposed improvements of the Erie canal, for the issuing of a loan of $900,000 for canal work, and for the election of Canal Commissioners by the people. This notable victory made Horatio Seymour the fore- most figure in the Democratic party in the Legislature, if not in the entire State. The remaining work of the session was of comparatively subordinate interest.
A resolution was introduced by Benjamin Franklin Hall, of Cayuga county, a Whig, providing for submis- sion to the people of the question of holding a Constitu- tional convention. It was referred to a committee com- posed of four Democrats and one Whig, which pigeon- holed it and refused to report it to the Assembly. This resolution was modelled after the corresponding one
304
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
[1844
that led to the Constitutional convention of 1821, and was almost identical in purport with the resolution which was introduced and adopted in the Legislature of the following year, 1845. We may thus credit the Whigs with having taken the first definite step toward the Constitutional convention. On the refusal of the committee to report the bill a caucus of the Whig mem- bers of both houses was held, and as a result, on the next day, March 15, a resolution was offered instruct- ing the committee to report it whether with or without amendment. The Democrats generally opposed this resolution, and it was by their votes laid on the table, where it remained until April 2. Then it was taken up, acrimoniously debated, and again tabled. Later, Leon- ard Lee, a radical Democrat of Orange county, intro- duced a resolution directing the committee to report a bill in favor of a Constitutional convention, which was passed by radical and Whig votes; but the bill for a convention was not acted on before the adjournment of the Legislature.
In the closing days of the session a bill was forced through reducing the number of Canal Commissioners to four and making them elective by the people. A strong report in favor of normal schools was presented by Calvin T. Hulburd, of St. Lawrence county, who had carefully studied the results of Horace Mann's great work in Massachusetts, and in consequence the Legislature provided for the establishment of such a school at Albany. The Legislature adjourned without day on May 7.
The death of Smith Thompson, of New York, in
PRESTON KING
Preston King; born in Ogdensburg, N. Y., October 14, 1806; was graduated from Union college, 1827; lawyer; established the St. Lawrence Republican, 1830; postmaster of Ogdensburg. 1831-1834; member of the state legislature, 1835-1838; in congress, 1843-1853; elected to the United States senate and served 1857-1863; delegate to the national convention and presidential elector on the republican ticket in 1864; appointed by President Johnson as collector of the port of New York, August 15, 1865; drowned from a ferryboat in New York harbor, November 12, 1865.
1
JOHN VAN BUREN
John Van Buren, lawyer; son of Martin Van Buren, presi- dent of the United States; born, Hudson, N. Y., February 18, 1810; graduated from Yale, 1828; admitted to the bar at Albany, 1830; was attache of legation at London, February, 1831; in February, 1845 was elected attorney general of the state of New York and served until December, 1846; took an active part in the political canvass for the exclusion of slavery in 1848, but did not stay by the free soil party; ranked high as an attorney and won the sobriquet "Prince John" by his good looks and popularity; died at sea, October 13, 1866.
305
GOVERNOR BOUCK
1844]
1843, left a vacancy on the bench of the United States Supreme Court which it was generally conceded should be filled with another New Yorker. In December of that year President Tyler sent to the Senate the name of John C. Spencer, of New York, who was at that time Secretary of War. Confirmation was refused, the Whig Senators voting against him on the purely political ground that, while formerly a Whig, he had accepted office under President Tyler, a Democrat. In January, 1844, the President sent to the Senate the name of Reuben H. Walworth, Chancellor of the State of New York, but it was pigeonholed and no action was taken upon it by the Senate for more than a year. Finally in February, 1845, the President withdrew the name of Mr. Walworth and substituted that of Samuel Nelson, Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court of New York, who was confirmed.
Just before the adjournment of the Legislature the Democratic members, both conservative and radical. held a caucus at which was adopted an address to their constituents. A bitter fight arose over a passage in the address commending the administration of Governor Bouck. This passage was finally adopted, but many of the radicals refused to concur in it or to sign the ad- dress containing it, and published a statement to that effect.
The Whigs held a caucus after adjournment, and is- sued an address scathingly arraigning the Democratic party. It especially condemned the Democrats for re- fusing to accept from the Federal government this State's share of the proceeds of the sales of public lands,
306
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
[1844
amounting to $90,000. That sum had been apportioned to New York by act of Congress, and the only pretext for refusing to accept it was that New York Democrats did not believe in such distribution of funds. The ad- dress declared for a Constitutional convention, for uni- versal suffrage, and for the division of the State into approximately equal Senate and Assembly districts. It opposed the annexation of Texas and upheld the tariff of 1842; and it recommended Millard Fillmore for the Vice-Presidential nomination, with Henry Clay; for President.
The national convention of the Democratic party at Baltimore in 1844 was of supreme interest to New York because Martin Van Buren was the leading candidate for the Presidential nomination. It was marked with an extraordinary contest over the two-thirds rule gov- erning nominations, the outcome of which was a reaffirmation of that rule and its establishment as a precedent which no subsequent convention has ever been willing to abandon. That rule was first made in the Democratic convention of 1832, and was then ap- plied to the nomination of the Vice-President only, the unanimous renomination of Jackson for the Presidency being a foregone and undisputed conclusion. In 1835 the matter was much discussed, and a motion declaring a majority sufficient was adopted and then reconsidered and rejected; after which the two-thirds rule was readopted, by a vote of 231 to 210, as applicable to nom- inations for both President and Vice-President.
The contest over the rule in 1844 was particularly earnest, for this reason : Van Buren was a candidate, and
307
GOVERNOR BOUCK
1844]
he was certain to have a majority of votes on the first ballot and therefore to be nominated if a mere ma- jority should be sufficient. The south was, however, against him because of his opposition to the annexa- tion of Texas. He held that annexation would be offensive to Mexico and would probably be a cause of war with that country, and insisted that there was no principle in the laws of nations which would justify it. So the southern delegates, supported by a few from the north, called for readoption of the two-thirds rule, under which it would be impossible for Van Buren to get the nomination.
The New York delegates, led by Samuel Young and Benjamin F. Butler, radicals, and Daniel S. Dickinson and Erastus Corning, conservatives, were a unit in opposing the two-thirds rule, which they knew would be fatal to Van Buren; and Mr. Butler made a notably powerful speech against it. But in the end it was adopted, by a vote of 148 to 116. On the first ballot Van Buren had a small majority, but his vote then dwindled. After several ineffectual ballots the name of Silas Wright was brought forward, and he might have been nominated had not John Fine produced a letter from him positively declining to accept a nomination. No vote was cast for Wright on any ballot. Then Mr. Butler, with Van Buren's consent, withdrew the latter's name and declared for James K. Polk, for whom the votes of New York were thereupon cast and who was nominated. The convention unanimously, save for the eight votes of Georgia, nominated Silas Wright for Vice-President, but he declined by telegraph, after-
308
[1844
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
ward saying that he did not want to "ride behind the black pony," thus probably originating the "dark horse" phrase in American politics. The Vice-Presi- dential nomination then went to George M. Dallas.
It had been a foregone conclusion that the Whigs would nominate Henry Clay. The only contest was over the Vice-Presidency. For that office New York recommended Millard Fillmore, but Theodore Fre- linghuysen, of New Jersey, was chosen. The Aboli- tionists, under the name of the Liberty party, nomi- nated James G. Birney, of New York, and Thomas Morris, of Ohio.
While the Democrats of New York were sufficiently united on national candidates, on State candidates and issues they were rent asunder. Governor Bouck was a candidate for reelection and had many supporters among the conservatives. But the radicals would have nothing to do with him and clamored for Silas Wright. Several radical members of the Legislature asked Mr. Wright early in 1844 to be a candidate, but he declined. They persisted in their importunities, however, with the result that on August 1 he wrote a letter for pub- lication in the St. Lawrence Republican declaring that in his own estimation he had no right to become a com- petitor for the nomination. But before its publication he was persuaded to permit the insertion of a phrase making it read that he had no right to become a com- petitor "against any other candidate," intimating that he would accept a unanimous nomination. The con- vention met at Syracuse on September 4. On the first ballot Mr. Wright received 95 votes to 30 for Gover-
309
GOVERNOR BOUCK
1844]
nor Bouck, and on the next ballot his nomination was made unanimous. Daniel S. Dickinson peremptorily refused to accept renomination for Lieutenant-Gover- nor, and Addison Gardiner, of Monroe county, for- merly a Circuit Judge, was chosen. Mr. Gardiner was a life-long friend of Thurlow Weed, to whom he after- ward owed elevation to the bench of the Supreme Court of New York.
The Whig convention met at Syracuse a week later, with the veteran Francis Granger as its chairman. There was no contest over candidates. Millard Fill- more had been the State's choice for the Vice-Presi- dential nomination at the national convention in May, but had been defeated. Horace Greeley had strongly supported him in the New York Tribune, largely be- cause Mr. Fillmore was almost as much opposed to slavery as the Abolitionists themselves; but for that same reason he was rejected by the convention. That defeat in the national convention, however, made him the leading candidate in the New York State conven- tion, and he was nominated for Governor by acclama- tion without any formal ballot and without the mention of any other candidate. In like fashion Samuel J. Wilkin, of Orange county, was named for Lieutenant- Governor.
The Liberty party named Alvan Stewart for Gov- ernor, a brilliant but erratic man. A "Native Ameri- can" party made nominations for the Legislature only, as also did an "Anti-Rent" party, existing chiefly in the counties where the Anti-Rent war against the pa- · troons had raged. Each of these parties elected some
1
310
[1844
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
members, among the Anti-Renters being Ira Harris and William H. Van Schoonhoven, of Troy.
The campaign, State as well as national, really turned upon the question of slavery as defined by the proposed annexation of Texas as a slave State. Van Buren had lost the Democratic nomination for Presi- dent by opposing annexation. Clay lost the election by assuming an equivocal attitude. He wrote on July 1 to a correspondent in the south that he wished to see Texas enter the Union "on fair and just terms," and added that "the subject of slavery ought not to affect the question one way or the other." That was absurd, because it was notorious that Texas was to be annexed purely for the sake of slavery. It was also fatal to Clay's candidacy. Thousands of anti-slavery Whigs at once abandoned him and went over to Birney and the Liberty party, and these were sufficient to mean the desertion of Fillmore by many in New York.
In the national election Clay was beaten by the defec- tion of the Liberty party, and in New York Fillmore was beaten by the same cause. Wright received 241,- 090 votes, Fillmore 231,057, and Stewart 15,136. Had Fillmore received two-thirds of Stewart's votes he would have been elected.
Soon after the election Silas Wright resigned his seat in the United States Senate. His colleague, Mr. Tallmadge, also resigned because he had been ap- pointed Governor of the Territory of Wisconsin. After some delay and controversy Governor Bouck ap- pointed to fill their places Daniel S. Dickinson, who was about to retire from the Lieutenant-Governorship,
311
GOVERNOR BOUCK
1844]
and Henry A. Foster, who was just completing his term as a State Senator.
Governor Bouck's administration closed with an- cther violent eruption of the anti-rent troubles. In December, 1844, bands of rent-protesting tenants in Columbia county disguised themselves as Indians and attacked the Sheriff in his office, taking from him and burning a number of dispossess warrants and other legal papers. At one of their mass-meetings firearms were used and a man was shot dead. Governor Bouck con- sulted with his successor and as a result ordered a militia force to serve as police in Columbia county and wherever there was need. As a result the trouble was abated.
CHAPTER XIX SILAS WRIGHT
S ILAS WRIGHT'S administration of the Gover- norship of New York was in its effects upon his political fortunes a tragedy. Few men in the history of New York were ever more loved, trusted, almost worshipped, than he. As a Senator of the United States he ranked among the foremost at a time when the Senate was thronged with notable men. The Presidency of the United States should have been within his reach. The Governorship of the Empire State seemed to be an entirely fitting place for him and to afford him vantage ground for his further ambitions. But it proved to be his political ruin. William H. Seward, his political opponent, discerned this fact with that almost uncanny vision which he at times possessed. On hearing of Wright's nomination for the Governorship he declared it to be his fatality. "Elec- tion or defeat," he added, "exhausts him."
The administration began in a storm. The animosi- ties between the two Democratic factions, held in par- tial abeyance during the campaign of 1844, were re- newed with a more deadly fury than ever before. This appeared the moment the Sixty-eighth Legisla- ture met on January 7, 1845. Apart from the change in the Lieutenant-Governorship the Senate retained its
312
313
SILAS WRIGHT
1845]
organization unchanged. But in the Assembly-in which Ira Harris, of Albany, and Freeborn Garret- son, of Dutchess county, appeared as new members- there was open war.
Horatio Seymour was a candidate for Speaker-by far the best-fitted man in the house for the place, sup- ported by the conservatives and also by Edwin Cros- well, with his Albany Argus. But to him the State officers, led by the Comptroller, Azariah C. Flagg, were opposed, and they put forward as his rival Wil- liam C. Crain, of Herkimer county, an extreme radi- cal of considerable ability. The contest was conducted with greater bitterness than was usual between Demo- crats and Whigs, and at last was decided by a narrow margin, and probably through a "deal," which led to a further access of animosity. Of the seventy Demo- cratic members of the Assembly, sixty-five went into the caucus, and of these thirty-five voted for Mr. Sey- mour, who was accordingly elected Speaker. Then when it came time to elect the State officers, Azariah C. Flagg was reëlected Comptroller. If this was a part of a bargain between the supporters of Mr. Sey- mour and the radicals, Mr. Seymour himself was not privy to it or cognizant of it.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.